c3k

togi, Happy Birthday!

It was the gum that did it. Well, the gum and the stick. Actually, gum, stick, and the mirror. The mirror is the key. Helpful comment: this is, indeed, something that several beta's are interested in and looking at. That statement does not imply anything other than what it says: some individuals are looking at it.

This is an interesting thread which does more to highlight posters' world-view regarding entitlement than it does to discuss ethics in a free market. For an example of what many would consider UNethical, how about game company releasing a game with an internal "death clock". One day it just stops working. You have to send in $10 to get the clock reset so you can play for longer. (Actually, that'd be kind of interesting...) To dieseltaylor's example of Ford's infotainment debacle, that's a poor analogy. Unfortunately, I have firsthand experience with the excrescence known as "MyFord Touch" (MFT), the touchscreen version which utilizes their Sync architecture. Ford has released many FREE patches. It's still garbage. They have not released a new product. If they did, I cannot imagine it'd be free. If the 2014 model has a new dash, do you really think my 2011 should get it for free? That's a spurious strawman argument you presented. So, you don't want to spend $10 to upgrade your CMBN to the level of play as CMFI? Okay, enjoy the FREE v1.11. Free market: producer offers a product at a price they set, consumer decides if the offer is acceptable. That is the single MOST ethical method to recompense one party for their labor that has ever been developed. Unless YOU have changed the CMBN code from v1.xx to v2.00, I would suggest that you have absolutely no idea how much labor was involved. One could say that you are talking out of your ass, were you to do so. togi, to your original post. Okay, you've hit your threshold. You're not going to spend $10 for v2.0. I have no knowledge how Market Garden's install will work. I don't know if you MUST have v2.0 installed PRIOR to installing it or not. Shrug. If you want MG, you'll see if you can afford it and take appropriate action. If not, don't. The high emotional content seems a bit out of place. It's ten bucks. These days, that's just two cups of high fallutin' coffee. Ken

Thanks for the catch! Ken (Hey, that silver thing? It's the charm his girlfriend, Frieda, gave him on his last leave. A silver mistletoe?)

My bold. The WEIGHT of needed supply is critical. 8kg/min x 2 MG42/squad = 16kg/min/squad. 10 minutes of fire consumes 350 pounds of ammo. 9 men per squad... almost 40 pounds of ammo per man. It is simply not feasible.

Heat and barrels: check the M14 acceptance tests. They fired that thing continuously with some sort of "torture test". The wooden handguards igniting from excessive barrel heating was noted (some ridiculously high round-count), but did not detract from the test since the weapon continued to fire. I have no idea what the ignition point of walnut is, but it was exceeded where it touched the barrel. Ken

Oil is used as a rust-protectorant on many weapons. Smoking barrels do not indicate the barrel is anywhere near a melting point. (I did not watch the linked video.)

The TITLE states "orchards" but all the descriptions are of vineyards. If someone seems to be suffering a high rate of immobilizations in an _orchard_ zone, let us know. Thanks.

The steel obstacles, as noted above, are just like a child's jacks. They CAN be blown up. Literally. They go up...then they fall back down in the same action spot. The end result is no change. The game does not show the flying up in the air and landing again animation (fuitaalaa), but it IS there. Throw some demo charges at 'em and you'll see what I mean. Really. Ken

...Letting you know. Save it, please. Watching the video, I could not tell the distance of that last shot. Any chance you could string a TARGET line and post the yardage? ("Meterage" just doesn't have any kind of ring to it.) FWIW, the two guys crawling seemed to present a single, oversize, target. Kind of a double-sized bull; how could he miss? Thanks, Ken

Well, my questions were not ironic or a plea. I was pointedly showing that long-range machinegun fire takes on a different characteristic than short-range fire. Both of which are very different than indirect machinegun fire. Tracers and walking rounds on target: My personal experience with long range machinegunning is limited to some M240 time at 800+m, and only several thousand rounds at that distance. The target was a raised berm, about as wide as a bulldozer blade. Lying prone behind the M240, there was no way I'd have seen a standing man at that distance. It was flat ground with light grass, some undulations. Enough so that being prone blocked a lot of my LOS. 1:5 tracer to ball. The dirt and dust thrown up by the muzzle blast was sufficient to FORCE firing halts in, mostly vain, attempts to locate the impacts. Lateral aiming was easily accurate. The range was difficult to estimate, as was the required corrections. Yes, eventually I got rounds on target, but it was far more difficult than I had anticipated. Certainly it is a very different dynamic than rifle firing. - No optics, no pre-ranged knowledge, no binos, no tripod, plenty of dust. So, as laughably modest as my longrange machinegun experience is, at least it allows me to question some underlying assumptions in these tests. Fall of shot "sensing" is CRITICAL to any engagement. Walking rounds on target is something that requires shot sensing. (There are MANY accounts stating the major drawback to the 76mm Sherman was the inability to watch the round strike due to muzzle blast/dirt. So much so, that the powers that be wanted to have them operate only in pairs with one shooting while the other relayed corrections. That's something you don't see/hear much about.) I agree that is _seems_ that CMx2 does not incorporate shot-to-shot corrections to machinegun fire. That may or may not be a true characterization of the game. Should a squad be able to saunter up to an emplaced MG42 over open ground and win? Of course not. In my mind's eye, if I were sitting on a raised piece of ground in the midst of a 1km wide parking lot behind my trusty MG42, I'd have a hard time believing a platoon could close with me to within effective rifle firing range (300m or less). (Given that they didn't know exactly where I was and that I had spotters, binoculars, magnified optics on the weapon, and plenty of ammo...) So, perhaps you ascribe EVERY question to a criticism to being a "fanboi". Instead, you should realize that the questions are there to dig into the criticism. Call it a system of peer review. Apocal has done some good work. The latest test, a German mech squad (I forget which one was used) vs. a US machinegun unit, is totally different from the initial test. Test 1 used "A vs. B". Test 2 used "X vs. Y". There can be no comparison drawn between the two. Due to the widely scattered approach used by each individual tester/player, these results, are only useful as individual data points which indicate a modeling/result mismatch.

Baseline: using the MG34/42 in defense, how can it spot targets at 1,000m? How important are range estimation errors at 1,000m? What sighting equipment is it using, e.g. magnified optics? What range would be the furthest at which a tripod MG could reasonably expect to drop rounds amidst a squad?

I find myself in agreement with the bolded parts. Fear is the key. Knowing that you're in the middle of the beaten zone of a ranged in machinegun is powerful knowledge. Veterans and well-trained troops would be aware, at a high cognitive level, that stopping right there means you'll take more casualties. But standing up increases YOUR chance of being hit. (Or so it feels.) Fear of possible fire, rather than suppression due to ACTUAL fire, seems like it could be tweaked. How many gamers would complain when all their companies are hugging dirt and refuse to advance? (Insert NCO-based counterargument that training overcomes fear.) Ken

Hide: you have to command it. That _should_ reduce vulnerability. (All this is based on memory... If I'm wrong, I apologize.)

Nice. My understanding of bunkers (both types) is that they provide distinct zones of protection based on height above floor level. Meaning, troops "up" are much more likely to get hit than troops hiding on the floor. Realistic? Um, no. But, it does "model" the weakness of the large opening shown on the bunkers. Ignore mortar (over)accuracy for now. Based on your test: Bunkers give GOOD overhead cover. That seems correct. Bunker spotting is odd. That is due to how they are programmed in the game. Nice to be fixed. Direct fire shreds bunkers. That seems correct. There is room for improvement, vis a vis penetration and resistance of specific rounds and bunker types and location of the hit. Overall, if you're in a bunker and a tank rolls up, you're in a world of hurt. (Exceptionally well-built concrete fortresses were not as vulnerable. They are the exception.) Bunkers burn. Huh. Did each of your bunkers include ammo? Grasping at straws with that one. I would think it should be hard to ignite a bunker. Harder, at least, than a building. (Civilian buildings would, IMHO, ignite more readily than a bunker.) Thanks, Ken

timmyc69, I bolded the part in your post which is wrong. You make the selection of what type of play you'd like after selecting the battle. There is a default selection. It's been so long I've forgotten what it is, but based on your post, I'd guess it defaults to "realtime". Look at the menus/screens which pop up; you'll see what I'm talking about. (Also, it's in the pdf manual.) Good luck. Ken

THAT'S why the Germans used feldgrau. The grey allowed them to blend in with things like gravelly roads and stone walls. Those Brits probably finished the war and never knew he had been there...

Beautiful work. Thank you. Ken

If you've read my posts about MG effectiveness in-game, you'll know that I am sympathetic to the view that machineguns are not as effective as I think they should be. Having said that, JasonC's post is worthless to this discussion. Seriously? Comparing another game system's treatment of machineguns does nothing to bring light to how machineguns should be treated in CM. Are we now going to add dice to CM? I thought not. Perhaps I should post how my PanzerBlitz Panthers are able to destroy T-34's in PanzerBlitz the next time someone questions T-34 armor thickness? Let us assume that JasonC's posting of how GMT's "Panzer" treats machineguns shows how well that game models machineguns. It is the "true" representation of how machineguns and infantry interact. What does that do for CM? Nothing. This is just another, "I don't think machineguns work the way they should" post. C'mon. You're better than that. BFC responds to "Here is a cited example of how a single machinegun worked." And then another, and another, and another. When the body of EVIDENCE proves that they got it wrong, they will fix it. Ken

Just played a turn in a current CMFI game in which my squad entered a stone building and was fired upon with canister by the enemy. It was effective. One red, one yellow (I think).

The team leader should dismount. Passengers will man transport vehicle weapons, then disembark normally.

Ahh, the driver just kept a sharp on his track marks from when he entered the battle!

As others have said, the AI uses the forces very well (no secret bonus for the AI), the Sherman was a good tank at that time (it has been disparaged for later performance, perhaps unfairly), and the game is unforgiving of sloppy tactics. Use infantry, in scout teams, to find the enemy. Using that information, use the weapon most suited for the target, and take the time needed to get the weapon in the most advantageous position. Of course, in WWII, casualty sensitivity was not the crippling concern it is now. Enjoy, Ken

Aye, indeed...