c3k

Bah. Just find one of those XO teams and run 'em straight at the suspected enemy zone. You'll get all the intel you want and you'll get it much faster. Plus, you'll be rid of that guy who thinks he'll take over when you screw the pooch. Win, win, win.

BFC does not buff or nerf units based on "skillz". Instead, the unit is equipped based on historical TO&E. If the unit had extra binos in real life, they get extra binos in CM. If the editor gives an option of having a recon platoon, look at it compared to a normal platoon. That's where you'll see the TO&E differences. So, if the recon unit is pretty bare, then it is bare. (The TO&E in game is a research quality level resource. This is down to the individual weapon and ammo loadout, as well as ancillary equipment like binoculars, radios, LATW, etc.) The only way to increase situational awareness of troops is to use the editor function and raise their experience and leadership level. This is true across all units. Elite scouts are no better at spotting/fighting than Elite riflemen. The difference is that scout units are more likely to have more elite members than a line rifle unit would have. (Scout units skim the better volunteers out of line units. Or they get "volunteered".) I would use research materials to determine a unit's overall experience and leadership. Say, the 1157th Rifle Regiment: Veteran, +1. I'd then tweak the recon unit, the 1157th Recon Platoon, by making every squad Veteran (instead of just some), and making some (most) better than Veteran (Crack and Elite). I'd also give the scout platoon +2 leadership and ensure they're "Fit" and "Fully" supplied, if that is warranted. In that manner, the recon platoon would be a cut above the standard rifle element in the 1157th Rifle Regiment. This tweak would produce a platoon which is more skilled at spotting the enemy and better at firefights, much as a specially trained recon platoon would be. Create some units like that and see how much more effective they are. Then see how many points your enemy gets for killing them. Ken

It must be modeled, not abstracted. When the left side of the tank is penetrated, I notice the guys on the left side being wounded/killed far more often than other crewmembers. Similarly for other tank locations. The modeling may be simplistic. But it is modeled.

"Target" means fire what you've got. "Target Light" means fire everything except your big stuff. If your big stuff is busted, missing, or was just never there, then "Target Light" is non-sensical. "Target" means fire what you've got, which is just your machineguns in this case.

Because "Mark" is easier to say than "Panzerkampfwagen 'X' ausfuhrung 'Y'"? And if you saw one of the handful of German WWI tanks on the WWII battlefield, you'd be very happy?

There is no first post. There is only the last post...

Creating scouts vs. Scout Platoon Scout Platoons (or other units) are usually made up of highly trained and highly motivated individuals. They're chosen for initiative, fitness, intelligence, etc. They're given more firepower. They're supposed to be light, and out in front. Therefore they need more organic firepower. They can operate outside normal command and control channels. Scouts created by the Admin Command are more of a "Hans und Franz, you are on point. Go ahead of the squad and see if anyone's in that barn" kind of scout. There is no assumption of training, skills, or equipment. It is assumed that if they get shot, that they can yell out or otherwise ensure that the mother unit knows that there is enemy up ahead. That is their function. That, and finding mines.

Is the change in relative thickness due to the hardened "flat" of the round digging into the armor and reducing obliquity?

Have him area fire the piat 80 yards ahead. Then FAST him to that spot, such that he arrives just prior to the round. He should die. Apply buddy aid and pry it from his cold dead hands.

Very complex issue. Turret rotation: electric vs. hydraulic vs. manual. Some depend on engine speed. Inertial effects seem to be ignored. Slope effects (unbalanced turrets) seem ignored. Gear lash seems ignored. However, if you think that a crew could figure out how to turn their turret to align on a target, most of the above is moot. Sure, it could add flavor, but would it change effectiveness? Pivot: ground condition, suspension, track length:width ratio, drivetrain, rpms, driver skill, gear reliability, brake wear, etc., all play a part. Again, given a trained crew, wouldn't they know how to pivot? If so, would they always do a max effort pivot? If so, how often would they stall the tank or immobilize it? (Thrown track, broken link, busted final drive gear, etc.). Finally, you, the player, are far more aware than the TacAI. Some allowance has to be given there.

I do not have a copy of book with these formulas. However, I'm also curious if the formula in question has been correctly transcribed or if it has specific limits associated with its use. Thanks for driving more solutions and showing the oddities.

^^^ Agreed. But, then, did you just see the video of the Ukrainians (?) starting up the engine of the static display JSIII? There are tank engines, and then there are Soviet Tank Engines. Splash some vodka on them and they stagger forward another 20 klicks. Even if they're just a piston sitting on the dirt.

One radiator hole can ruin your whole drive...in about 15 minutes.

^^^ Thickness matters. A sheet of aluminum foil is ~ .016mm thick. (Yes, 100 layers would be about 1 1/2 millimeters.) (Citation: Wikepedia "Standard household foil is typically 0.016 mm (0.63 mil) thick, and heavy duty household foil is typically 0.024 mm (0.94 mil).") If I lay a sheet of that foil nearly flat, at an angle from the vertical of 89.99 degrees, it will have an "equivalent thickness" as a vertical piece of 91mm thickness. Do you think that a 76mm shell fired at a flat sheet of aluminum foil 1500m away will do anything but plow through it? Lorrin Bird (Rexford) published a book which discusses these issues, among others. The physics of penetration is more complex than running a cosine function. (Gawd, did I just write "thickness matters" and "penetration" in the same post?) Overmatching is critical. This seems to be one such case. Ken

East Squad did not get a solid spot on the Germans. The North Squad did. The East guys fired. It may've been that I'd given them area fire orders but I don't think so. The Germans decided to surrender, but the East squad didn't see that. They just saw the Germans before they surrendered. That's the great thing about replay, otherwise I would've missed it.

Not just gauge. German locomotives had smaller water reservoirs for steam. Plus, the lack of adequate insulation for the cold weather. The German locomotives had about 1/2 the range of Soviet locomotives. They had to re-gauge the rails, AND add watering stops between every pre-war one the Soviets had built. (Of course, they also had to add more wood/coal carriers behind the locomotives and insulate them to Soviet standards.)

My take. |= wall + = door | no pass || no pass + pass ++ pass |+ pass +| pass ANY door on any wall allows passage. Now, cycling through wall choices from inside an building is insanely mind-numbing. Especially because I can guarantee that you'll miss the "no wall" option the first time through. 18 clicks per cycle? Per wall. And the camera placement is CRITICAL. If you see a "wall" on your side, check the other side. If there's a door on the other side, then obviously the "wall" on you side isn't really a wall. It's just some wallpaper to hide the door. In the hectic nature of combat, these kinds of interior design details get missed by many soldiers. Ken (Yes...I know I owe you a turn...)

CW units were traditionally beefed up with Vickers teams. Try adding some.

CMx1 was fun. Computer ASL, but better. Far better. CMSF had teething issues, and that got me motivated to poke at it and try to improve it. That got me an invite to be a beta tester, which is something BFC certainly rues to this day. (Silly them! I refuse to give up the secret decoder key they sent! Bwah-ha-ha.) The hook? Beta testing CMBN. I was US, attacking the Germans. One US squad was attacking some Germans behind bocage from the north. I was also flanking the Germans from the east with another squad. The North Squad overwhelmed the Germans. The surviving Germans knelt and surrendered. Meantime, a little later in the same wego turn, the flanking East Squad saw the German "?" icon and fired on them. The kneeling, surrendering, Germans were cut down. It was a kick in my gut. The emotional impact of that small act has stood out, ever since. Any game that can produce that level of emotional connection with the enemy is a game that is truly outstanding. The key to this game, for me, is the ability to replay these types of low-level actions and connect with the pixeltruppen.

"Hammers and nails, hammers and nails." CoH is fun. The camera is fixed at one position with 3(?) zoom levels. The maps are few. The game is engaging, but is, as mentioned, an RTS click-fest. Capture a fuel point so you can build a tank factory. Spew out some tanks every couple of minutes. Gain points and spend them to upgrade your units. Build more. The maps are divided into zones. Capture a zone and you get more "build" points. It has more in common with pokemon than with CM. Having said that, I've played almost all versions of it. It has its place, as does CM.

Very nice!

Suppressive fire is your friend. Where could the enemy be? Suppress it. Send a scout team up. Do they get hit? Yes? Excellent: they've done their job. Suppress wherever the fire came from. Send some more scouts. Do not ever move a full squad unless you're so sure it clear of enemy fire (including arty) that you'd let your mother-in-law walk there. Hmm. That may not be the best test... Regardless, little dabs of men darting about while the vast majority are either watching, suppressing, or engaging, is the key to minimizing your casualties. That, and supporting arms like armor or artillery.

Wool does not melt...

The famous fortified position 62 had water cooled mg's from Poland. I'd call 'em Maxim clones. FWIW.

Hmm... My AMD shadows actually seem better than my NVidia shadows. Those jaggies are ugly.