Sig

Hello, A big YES for BTS. I want to share with you a little story about my first contact with BTS. Once upon a time... I first read about CM:BO in the now defunct french publication Cyberstratège. Needless to say, excitation grew and as soon as I learned the game was released I ordered 3 copies of CMBO and added 2 of TacOps (for me and friends). But, poor me, I made 2 separate orders. Ack... To save precious cash, I immediately mailed to BTS asking if it may be possible to send CMBO and TacOps together. To my surprise, I very quickly received a nice answer by a person named Steve. I was very happy with the quality of the service, and said so. Then, a few weeks later, I learned Steve was THE Steve from BTS, and BTS was 2 (two) people!! I was amazed and delighted: I felt I was not simply an anonymous number on a list, but a customer they were CARING for. Seems like nothing? Not for me! I value a company which treats it's customers as grown adults and not simply numbers on an Excel sheet. Two people, they were...TWO people...I still can't believe it..these guys are..yes, MAGNIFICENT bastards !! Sig PS: Winecape, this wine idea is a great idea! (This message has NOT been edited. Why not? Because!)

Hello, Very true. For instance, never use area fire at night hoping it will stop once your men get close, because it won't. I haven't checked if green troops are more susceptible to shoot at friendlies than regulars or veterans. I would guess so, since they have a higher tendency to open fire at anything that moves. Anybody knows? Sig

Hello, I asked the question a few weeks ago about the effect of deep snow on artillery and Madmatt answered the effect was modelled in CMBB. Since the thread contained only half a dozen comments it sank fast and most of you probably missed it. Sig

Thanks for this incredibly fast feedback, Matt! Question nr2 has been answered by He-Who-Knows; I'm happy; I'm going to grab a dram of single malt to celebrate; can I pre-order CMBB? Sig

Hello, Juste read some interesting things on the Winter War site. I would like to quote something which I believe could be relevant to CMBB use of artillery in deep snow condition. It is from the part concerning the destruction of surrounded soviet troops ( Mottis ) : (my emphasis) My questions: 1/ could any arty grog or veteran comment about the effect of deep snow on artillerie efficiency/lethality compared to caliber? and if there is a serious effect 2/ should this be modelled in CMBB for the sake of realism? (Personnal opinion: heavy movement restrictions in deep snow would be "compensated" with a decreased efficiency of small to medium artillerie. Personnal experience: I have used hand grenades in deep snow and it is VERY good at absorbing a blast) Feedback much welcomed Sig

Hello, Having tested it in real life, I can tell that at least for hand grenades, deep snow works very well. The poor things becomes almost (almost...) harmless. At least this is the case for grenades which rely mainly on blast, as opposed to fragmentation, for killing. Haven't tested the other model. Sig

Hello. This a grey and rainy day here. And I just want to share with you this little (real) story about mortars. Here it goes: once upon a time... ...I was doing my military service somewhere in the Alps during the late 80's and we were preparing an exercise for the next day. During a pause in the preparation, a CO (who witnessed it) told us the following event: it was during a recent training with live ammunitions in a deep valley in the Alps. The exercise was to start with a battery of four mortars (81mm) firing at a target zone some 1.5 to 2 km away, at the very end of the valley. It was a prepared fire, and no targeting round was shot. The exercise starts, the battery fires, and all of a sudden comes a warning: a man has been detected in the target zone! Big alarm, firing is immediately stopped, but obviously too late as four 81mm warheads are already flying to target. The COs anxiously peer through their binoculars, and some of them can now see a tiny silhouette quietly walking right in the middle of the target zone. A few second later, four big explosions in short succession, right on target. The dust cloud settles, and no tiny human silhouette anymore... Everybody runs to the vehicles and speeds toward the target zone. As they arrive, they find the guy, an old man, not only alive but also unhurt! Nobody could believe such luck. But it was *not* luck! This old man was an ancient soldier of the German army who fought during WWII, and 40 years after the war he recognised the sound of incoming mortar rounds and took immediate cover!! This saved his life. I was amazed when I heard this story and it made me wonder about the psychological impact this weapon must have had on men. To still have such reflexes after more than 40 years of a peaceful life says a lot. Amazing. Sig

Hello, If I remember correctly, mine detection is not only quality-dependent but the speed of movement of your troops play also a role . If you have soldiers running, they have no chance of detection (or almost none). I have often seen mines detected by units which haven't been moving for a while (overwatch). LOS quality is probably also involved. Sig

Hello, just read the thread with great interest. Obviously as a user, I am interested . I think what Scipio said about webmasters agreeing not to post "stolen" (note the brackets) mods is the way to go. Would help to eliminate lots of frustration from the modders. Just my opinion. Sig PS: For people interested in what copyright is, here is a LINK . Short reading.

And another thing is to check the minimal firing distance of the model you are fielding. Not 100% sure, but if I recall correctly, the 2" is the only one which has no minimal firing distance. Sig

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson: I have seen statistics on Russian test of steel APFSDS where penetration went down up to 20% when the rod was cooled to -20 degrees. I suspect this would happen to AP rounds too, though they are heated more by friction since a DS round has a sabot.<hr></blockquote> Interesting. Just curious to know: if the projectile is so heavily affected by temperature, what about the armour? Does the temperature gradient (interior heated to +?? celsius and exterior at, say, -30 celsius) affect resistance? Is armour rendered more brittle? Does this compensate for decreased resistance of the penetrator rod? Oh, and also (more related to modern armour): what is the effect of said temperature gradient when the armour is layered, and made of different materials (steel, ceramics, etc) with different dilatation coefficent? Does this cause structural damages, or micro-cracks, or..what? Looks like we need some specialist in metal engineering or the like. High-tech grog wanted. Like JasonC sometimes says: "inquiring minds want to know" Sig

Hello, About the BLU-82 and other FAE stuff. Sig

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: good point also. in the pictures that i have seen and the accounts that i have read (i am no GROG by any means), it seems that most of the time it was either from a standing or kneeling position depending on the terrain/cover. firing from a prone position? thats a new one to me, i dont doubt it, but hadnt heard that before. i assumed that you would take too much heat from the backbalst hitting the gound behind you.<hr></blockquote> Hello, As I have many times fired an equivalent of the Panzerschreck during my army days, I can answer your question: no problem firing in a prone position. Just put your legs at an angle with the tube, and you won't even feel the heat. The loader as to be a little bit more careful: avoid looking back, in case of a reflection of the backblast on a terrain feature, and protect the primer and the detonator of the next rocket (normally held in hand, ready to be recharged). One problem when firing these weapons is when the terrain is very dry and with little vegetation (dust cloud) or when firing in a prone position in the snow (the little window in the shield is then covered with half molten snow). Vision is impaired and it slows down the firing of the next rocket by a few seconds. An info about rate of fire: with a good loader and good coordination, two shots on target in less than 8 seconds was easy. Best rate I observed was 2 on target (dist. around 150m, ranged) in 3.5 sec. But that was during a test, and was not very "tactical" (loader was not lying flat). Mean value we were able to obtain after some training was around 6 seconds. Accuracy: surprisingly good in the "point blank-200m" range. Surprisingly, because the aiming system was rather crude (a loop and a "pin"). Transport: &%*=)ç%%ç*"?`#!! (And I try to be polite) Cumbersome. When on the march, it was a pain to be the AT-guy. Never figured out how to transport it in a convenient way, except by removing the shield, and stuffing everything in the backpack. When attacking, was ok. A bit annoying because most of the time you needed to hold it with both hands: the center of gravity is moved a bit to the rear of the tube (on attack, the tube is loaded with a rocket). When fired, these weapons are very impressive: a very loud "soft" BAAOM, followed by the whistling of the rocket fins. It looks as if the firer has to control a HUGE recoil. In fact, almost no recoil, but when the blast of the rocket hits the shield it causes an upward movement of the tube. With good training, you are able to reacquire target almost immediately. Hope you find these little bits of info interesting. Sig

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Why not just have the same leader bonuses applied to HQs apply to individual armoured/vehicular units?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hello Triumvir, Well, because personally I prefer to keep the level of god-like control low. And because it will keep your observation skills sharp as you try to discover if your lone PzKpfw Ausf.IVf facing hordes of T34/75 is manned by the Uebercrew from Hell . Also this could give more flexibility: the *possible* accuracy bonus could probably be more finely tuned than simply with a +1 or +2. Furthermore uncertainty is a *great* feature of CMBO, and a probability to have an Uebercrew is far more exciting than the certainty to have one. At least that's my opinion. Sig

Hello, Just read the complete thread. Very interesting despite a significant increase in temperature lately. Just to refocus a few seconds on the game: The problem: long distance fire and accuracy, crew quality, is CMBO solving this equation realistically? A way to solve the problem without too many "to hit" bonus given to too many different weapons and crews (major pain to define) would be to do it in the same line as the "fanatism percentage" given to infantry. Simply give a new variable to AFV/Gun crews and call it, I don't know, something like: "Uebercrew", "Cool-headed", "Ace"...whatever you like. This would simply be a percentage giving the (secret) chance that this *CREW* receives a special "accuracy bonus". Exactely the same idea behind the "fanatism" bonus! With such a system you could simulate "the few tanks in a group doing most of the killing" thing, simulate the "Wittman effect", *avoid* the future gamey "all elite-100% accurate ueberpanzers for only 1200pts". AND it shouldn't delay (glps, deep water here, Sir) CMBB because it shouldn't ask for too much coding (OK, OK, major disclaimer for this part, I'm not Charles, obviously). What do you think? (waiting anxiously) Sig

Hello, I remember reading (was in Osprey's Ostfront introduction) that during the campaign against France most of the technically superior french tanks where eliminated by the Luftwaffe (same for the arty, btw). Has one of you some information if this was also the case during the early stages of Barbarossa? Thanks. Sig

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: You guys are presuming that depth of water is the only factor. I grew up with a stream running through my backyard. I could wade across it with ease. You couldn't drive a heavy duty truck through it, though, because of the jagged rocks on half of the bottom, and the soft SOFT mud extending about 10m on either side of the creek. Simply put, it may be problems with mud or rocks that explain why a particular ford is NOT crossable by vehicles, but IS crossable by humans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. I know rivers here in Europe that have their bottom made of a deep layer of pebbles. Fordable by humans, but impossible for vehicles (even tracked ones) which would just lose traction and bog. But it's true that the addition in CMBB of fords that can be crossed vehicles AND/OR humans will be nice. Will add variety to scenario design too. And so everybody will be happy. O joy. Sig

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Galatine: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Sig is suggesting placing guns _on_ a peak, not behind it, so that the artillery will fall mostly beneath the units elevation. Like the rain falling on a flag pole, few will hit the top while most will land far below. I believe reverse slope rather uses forward terrain as a mask to limit fields of fire. Sig, I totally agree with you on using moral bonus command units with guns. Moral bonus' really help but a command unit is essential. Your idea of using elevation against bombardment is interesting but isn't it just somewhat trading the danger of indirect (IE-Mortar and off-map artillery) for direct fire by making your unit a beacon on a height? Personally I avoid any extreme elevation with my AT guns, preferring instead to use them to exert control over a specific and limited, but key area of the map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes I agree with you that placing a gun on top of a hill is a bad idea, esp. if the field of view is vast. However, in the case I was explaining I was lucky in that the hill had a *flat* top (truncated pyramid form), so I could place the gun on the reverse slope (for flanking fire), a HQ on top (for spotting possible incoming ennemies) and a HMG on a lateral slope (in case ennemy inf. would try an assault). The flat summit meant that a significant number of the missing rounds landed harmlessly for my gun (the HQ had a hard time though). This would have been more difficult with a normal slope: as you know, the crest *does not* protect against explosion on the other side (the blast goes through the crest, game engine limitation). Something to keep in mind when placing valuable but fragile assets on a reverse slope! Sig

No overclocking either. Have a PII 333MHz 128M Ram with a Hercules 3D Prophet SE 32M. However, summer was quite hot these days, so maybe you have something here Matt. Will see: temperature has dropped quite a bit recently. So if the problem continues, I suppose that one of the first things to do will be to open the box to check for dust or so on the cooling element (or fan malfunction on the video card)... Gack...I will have to clear up my desk to gain easy access to the computer and I hate that . Sig

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: This problem started fairly recently. I would be playing and then all of a sudden the text in the Unit Info box (after you hit Enter) and the "penetration" text will get corrupted and start flickering and stuff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hello, *Exactly* the same thing happens to me!! Started a few weeks ago. No DirectX touched (it worked for long with version 8). Must check, but it's possible that I touched something in the 3D card settings (FSAA? Don't remember). I'm not at home now, so I'll check and see if I can give some additional info. Aaah I feel better now that I'm not the only one to suffer (sorry Maximus ). Sig

Hello, Was able to make the search function work. If you are talking about Rexford's book: The Book <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> rexford Member Member # 4402 posted 06-19-2001 07:21 AM We are now taking pre-order registration information for book sales in USA and Europe. Due to bureaucratic form filing, I cannot take orders through mail till July 10. USA, Canadian, Australian and other area sales info from Lorrin Bird at rexford179@cs.com Europe sales info from Frederic W. Erk at curator@musee-des-blindes.intranets.com <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hope it helps. Sig

Hello, Artillery as we all know is very often the Nemesis of the AT gun (at least in CMBO). I would like to share with you a little experience I had in a PBEM against a friend. Once upon a time... A QB with green Germans defending against crack GIs, and a PaK40 in a nice flanking position, far, far at the end of the map. The courageous little AT gun fires and kills an evil Sherman 76 (Ja!). You guess what happens next: bombardment! 81mm, the complete FO allotment (200 shells or so) on the AT gun's position. End result: 2 casualties, position held, no panic (they where green, remember...), and add 2 HT to the score, plus some infantry. Iron Crosses for everybody. What's the secret: the gun was in command of a leader with a moral bonus (+1 in this case) and was positioned on the slope of a hill looking like a truncated pyramid. When you bombard such a position, very few hits would fall both close to the gun AND at the same level. This decreases dramatically the efficacy of any shelling, and, obviously increases proportionally the life expectancy of the gun. My suggestion to all of us who like to keep our beloved guns alive: a good anti-arty position (i.e. on a slope) is OK, but it's imperative to have a HQ with a moral bonus to lead these guys! And it works! (Donning steel helmet) Any comments? Sig

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ciks: (snip) Maybe it is useful to HIDE your troops when facing 81mm mortars?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hello, Indeed it helps. Never really tested other than in battles. First time I noticed that was when my green german soldiers (under command) where caught in wood by an artillery barrage (was 75mm or 81mm, not sure). I hid them and the level of casualties was laughable if you consider they were bombarded for some 4 to 5 turns: lost something like 3 (it was a platoon). The only serious other casualties where the soldiers I ordered to move out of the woods during the bombardement: 1 Panzerfaust team (KIA), 1 HMG team (lost 3), one HQ (lost 1). So my opinion: hiding when you cannot (or don't want to) run to a safer place before Hell breaks out helps *a lot*! Disclaimer: this is purely based on my personnal observations during various battles. No scientific tests have been conducted. Statistical significance has not been checked. (bah, in fact I'm too lasy to test...) Sig [ 09-04-2001: Message edited by: Sig ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Sig, that difference is there, but it is minimal, except for, statistically, something like 1 guy out of 1,000,000 (or was it even 7,000,000? I forgot) who can really see better (because his eyes can process light of lower infrared wavelengths than usual - which would be around 750nm max).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the info. Sig

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: (snip) The main problem is that they stand out like a sore thumb as soon as they fire due to the large amount of dust and smoke from the backblast.(snip)]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not only that, but also the noise!! Saw one in action during my army days. It was on a jeep and when it fired, I thought my head would be ripped off. The noise of the explosion was unbelivable. Sig