Barticus

Oh man, Commando !???! I HAD managed to forget that bloody movie, thanks Matt. As for Terminator, he was the poor punk schmuck that Arnie used as a punching bag to get his coat. "Express elevator to Hell, goin' down!"

Paxxie ol'boy, ya neva' looked betta'

Ah yes, Bill Paxton. My buddies and I would go see any movie with him in it just to see IF he lived, or at least, HOW he died. Now for some Bill Paxton quotes; "What, put HER in charge?" "Well that's just GREAT. What are we gonna do now man? What are we gonna do??" "Relax xyz is my specialty" "****-Kickers heaven!" "We got Nukes. We got Knives, sharp sticks" "Hey Jessie, remember that fire we started in Chicago?" "COME GET SOME. OH, YOU WANT SOME TOO? HOW ABOUT THIS....HICKS!! HICKS!!" Darn, I used to know more than this. Oh well.

I have never had any luck (of the good sort, anyway) with the ambush command. I find it more profitable to use terrain to limit your tank's LOS. This way it will only have one or two targets to choose from, and only have to turn the turret a very limited amount to do so.

Dammit! I thought he said 'Labatts'

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olandt: Titanium power book. God I love this thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ummm, Olandt, go check the Apple website, there has been a recall on (some) Titanium G4 Power Adapters!

'Allo, my name is Indigo Montoya. You killa my father, prepare to die! Will you QUIT SAYING THAT!

First of all, I wasn't aware Germany had discontinued the use of face-hardened armour during the war. (not "groggish" enough, I guess ) Secondly, if they did, I can only guess it was one, or both, of two major reasons. 1) Face hardening adds to the amount of time necessary for AFV construction. By '43 or so, Germany needed to build as many AFV's as possible and any time-saving procedure would be seriously looked at. This was one of the major reasons why self-propelled guns became so prevalent in the later war years. 2) Spalling. If you weren't aware, spalling is what happens when the energy of an impacting round, which doesn't penetrate, causes flakes of steel to separate on the inside of the vehicle and cause crew casualties. I don't know how serious this problem was, but it was known to exist. Hope this helps, but eventually a real grog will come along and help you out Bart

In the latest release of Computer Gamer magazine (known as the preview edition) there is one tiny screenshot of CM2. However, on the CD, there is also a wealth of movies for IL-2, Neverwinter Nights and a host of other goodies. Bart

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: And if you hate Jabos now, wait until you run across USMC Close Air Support. Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Corsairs and Panthers and Mustangs, OH MY!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: Those are phat. (means cool)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As in Chow Yun Phat?

As I understand it, Rommel had intended to write a book on armour tactics but never got the chance.

I don't understand a single word of what's being said, but it sure is fun trying to read it!

In response to Spook, who posted while I was typing; Again, I can agree with you on most of your observations. If the decision were made to see a smaller scope CM, the decision would also have to be made to drop something at the larger end. Battalion scale engagements would be tedious in the extreme, hell, I find them tedious now, but a typical engagement at a reduced scope would probably be about a platoon. I guess what I'm searching for is the ability to do justice to how hard the fighting was in built-up areas like Ortona and Stalingrad. I made a scenario for Combat Mission in a town setting and clearing city blocks with combined arms tactics is just far too easy. Only being able to draw upon my rather limited paintball experience, I just feel it should be more difficult than it currently is. Just a quick note; I have heard rumours that BTS intends to expand building representation in CMB2B, and I am VERY much looking forward to it. Bart

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Ron: The biggest problem of changing the scale as far as I'm concerned would be balance between the various arms (infantry, armour etc.) At the moment a force of infantry can take on a mechanised force in a well balanced battle. If the game scale changed I think it would be very difficult to maintain that balance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I absolutely agree. I would argue, though, that the current focus of CMBO is the armoured fighting vehicle, whatever it's role. Infantry is included and ABSOLUTELY necessary in any sort of combined operations. I still can't help feeling, however, that it takes a back-seat to the armour, not as 'Sexy' I guess. If the scope were reduced, the focus of the game would then become the individual infantry soldier. Although, I should be careful what I wish for. I might just end up saying "Damn those Garands!!" instead of "Damn those Panthers!!" Bart

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: [QB] Actually, it would be vitally different than a real-time first-person shooter such as Operation Flashpoint. I'm thinking of a game that in all of the most important respects (hybrid turn system, interface, detailed ballistics model, historical accuracy, tactical complexity, diversity of units, etc.) would be just like CM, but with the scale altered to cover individual men and vehicles, instead of using the current somewhat broader scale of individual vehicles and squads/teams. I think a game like that would present many new and interesting tactical challenges without becoming a shooter. QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was more or less what I was getting at, this is the kind of game I wouldn't mind seeing. It would be especially good for modelling house-clearing.

....and let's not go into the fact that 'paper strength' doesn't necessarily reflect what the men in the field actually HAD.

Let me start by saying this is NOT a request for BTS to build a new game, just me being curious. The current 'scope' of Combat Mission is basically on the section. Several sections of men make a platoon, several platoons make a company etc. What if Combat Mission were increased in scope, say, where one of the 'multi-man' counters would represent a platoon and a single vehicle model would represent a pair of vehicles, would you still be as interested? A map at this scale could be several tens of kilometres wide and larger actions would be more easily handled, but I feel too much would be given up for the sake of playability. I really enjoy getting down in the dirt and seeing what the men I command are seeing. Understand what I'm getting at? Good, so let's go the other way, what if Combat Mission were decreased in scope? Each individual soldier would be modeled, there would be TWO men for each MG42 LMG, and five for each M2HB. Vehicles would be much rarer and potentially more potent. The 3D terrain would be much more important, perhaps even including the interiors of different sized buildings, hell, maybe you could even MAKE your own buildings through a set of pre-generated tiles. I know I played the old X-Com literally to death, and would be most interested in seeing how this scale could be handled using the 'we-go' system. I realize that there are games out there that could compete with either of the options I discussed above (MS Close Combat series and Talonsoft's Campaign series) but I believe the beauty of Combat Mission is the we-go system, I just wouldn't have stayed as interested in the game if it weren't for this unique compromise of turn-based and real-time strategy. Anyway, I was just wondering what everyone else thought, or am I completely off my rocker? Wait a minute, you DON'T have to answer that.

If you want to read a good book about a US Marine Sniper in Vietnam, I recommend the book '93 confirmed kills'. It details the 1 1/2 tours of duty of Sgt. Hathcock who had, go figure, 93 confirmed kills for that war, or whatever you want to call it. He has an account of sniping with an M2HB and killing a Viet Cong 'tax collector' at a range of something like 1700 yards, while the target was moving. He was also responsible for killing a North Vietnamese General from a distance of 800 yards. IIRC he said that when he had approached as close as he could in the treeline, the distance was about 1200 yards, but we wanted to get to 800 yards 'just to make sure'. Sheesh, I can't hit squat with a 16 power scope at 300 yards! Remember the sniper duel scene in Saving Private Ryan? Well, guess what, that happened to him too. Halfway through his second tour, he was put out of action when a Marine amtrac hit a mine. He wasn't in it, but started evacuating wounded marines when the thing went up in flame and Hathcock suffered 3rd and 2nd degree burns to most of his body. Even though he was in constant pain, after the war he still made efforts to get to as many shooting competitions as possible. One dedicated man. If you want more info, either get the book, or just ask Gyrene Bart

Man, the best thing about this forum has to be everyone's sense of humour. Thanks to everyone for making what has been an extremely hectic morning a little easier to take. Bart

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KnifeForkSpoon: Could have thrown a few French Canadian-isms and "ah-BOOOts" in there, eh? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *sigh*

As well, I was under the impression that the engine re-write was specifically FOR CM3.

Hooboy, well, I can try to answer some of your questions. First of all, the original role of the '88 was anti-aircraft and hundreds (if not thousands) were deployed around Germany in this role. I would guess that this is the reason your model doesn't have the gunshield, although I am not certain. The term 'self propelled gun' is generally reserved for non-turreted armoured vehicles designed primarily for the infantry support role. This is a very broad generalization as, especially later in the war, Germany relied on the SPG's to fulfill the role of anti-tank vehicle as well. Certainly vehicles like the Jagtiger, Jagdpanther and Hetzer were primarily anti-armour assets (tank destroyers), but still fit the description above. Technically speaking, the term self-propelled gun CAN be used to describe ANY tank mounting something heavier than a machine gun, but the terminology sort of evolved over time in order to keep things from getting even MORE confusing. While I am sure the Priest had a .50 mg, I didn't think either the Sexton or the Hummel had a mg fitted from the factory, a more groggish forum representative will be able to help you better here. As for the presence of the machine gun on the Priest, these vehicles were intended for combat, and the enemy had a nasty habit of being where he wasn't supposed to be, so the additional machine gun was fitted in order to give the vehicle some sort of defence against infantry close assaults. All three of these vehicles were armoured to give them some protection against shrapnel of enemy counter-battery fire, and weren't meant to stop anti-tank shells. Hoping I haven't confused you even more. Bart

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Nothin' like seeing Political corruption first hand.

Herman Goerring? Yah, he gets my vote too, the fat pig.