c3k

Another explanation could be that Steve can finally retire on the proceeds...and has done just that! Or, Taki's post was the straw that broke the camel's back and he is now living in the wilderness of Maine. On topic: My understanding is that some impacts, even though not on or near the optics, could shake them out of alignment. I'd have to look at Jentz et al. and see if I can find some sort of report stating that as having happened. IF, and that's a capital "IF", optics should be sensitive to hits on the tank, other than right on or near the optics, then we can start getting data about the energy levels needed to affect the alignment. E.g., should a 75mm Sherman firing at 1,200m and hitting the turret side be able to affect the optics? Does it do so in the game? Barring that level of knowledge, what kind of interpolation should be used? Should a Priest's 105mm HE hitting the mantlet on the OTHER side of the barrel from the optics have NO effect on the sighting system? (Personally, relying on memory of the various reports/books, that impact would be problematic.) How strong were each tank's sights mounted? Recognizing that the sights could be removed from inside the turret, usually using mounting/set screws. Pulling the primary sight out and replacing it with a spare would mean that the spare and the gun are not aligned. In game I would imagine that could be represented by good spotting ability but poor accuracy. Did some tanks not have crew replaceable optics? Which ones? Are random small arm round hits on the protective lense modelled? As quoted upstream, they could be replaced; how many spares were carried, how long did it take to replace, did it involve removing the sight and losing zero? Now, this is not to say that a 37mm hit to the rear of a Tiger should damage the sight. But it does mean that far more WORK has to be done to quantify what the reality was, what the game does, and thereby showing how they differ. Ken

Bayonets aren't the only item used in HtH. However, running forward as a unit with bayonets fixed, screaming, red-faced, etc., shows the enemy that you are serious. If he is not as serious, he will attempt to surrender (not likely when facing screaming red-faced men running at you with pointy metal), or he will flee. Sharpened entrenching tools work well as battle axes. The trench club is merely a modernized mace. It has the same utility. The rifles themselves are great. Being about 10 lbs and 4 feet in length, they add a bit of "oomph" to the butt stroke. (I'd be bit hesitant about expecting results from an M4 butt stroke, especially compared to what an upswung Garand stock would do to a jaw.) There's so much more than just the bayonet.

Thanks for doublechecking.

The details are incredible. You can lose hours just scrolling around the map zooming in and looking at things. (That's the excuse I use, anyway!)

Huh, that's funny. I thought there was an active thread here, but when I clicked into it, I couldn't see any posts. Anyone know if someone started this thread?

I have absolutely no proof for this practice, but once a vehicle bogs, I cancel all its movement orders to improve its chances of unbogging. Before you go off-road, check the ground conditions. It's given in a menu, located in the same space used for creating savegames or quitting.

"Close Combat" and "Hand to Hand Combat" are different. In one situation you are close. In the other, you are closer. I think "close combat" usually refers to anything where the average pull of a trigger can get a hit. You see them and they see you and you're both well within the range trained at on the firing range. That could be 10' to 100'. In open ground that could even be 100 yards. Within the perceived effective range of everyone's primary weapon. That's my perception, when I read these accounts. Think about it: how many men were involved and what were their casualties? Now, how close do you need to be to ensure 100% casualties? If the actual casualties were less than 100%, then the range was probably greater than what's needed to ensure 100% casualties. (That range would vary, based on cover/concealment.) Close combat could be room-clearing; it could be firing across the village street at one another; it could mean anything. Ken

I was speaking only of the VL's as they actually exist in the game. Using a larger, fuzzy area would be far different. It may be more realistic, but then "control" would be open to debate. An enemy tank on a far hilltop may preclude control if it has LOS/LOF to the center of the fuzzy VL. What if that same tank is on the back side of the far hill? It can move up to a hull-down position in a few seconds and preclude control, but, at that moment, it is out of LOS. Does that mean the tank's firepower should count? (I'm assuming that player has a spotter on the front of the hill to communicate with the tank.) Fuzzy zones, fuzzy firepower, fuzzy numbers.

Oooh, I'd love to have better close range animations and the sound of ringing steel as bayonets clash with bayonets. One of my books, no doubt deeply covered in dust at the moment, included a large amount of US Civil War battle wound analysis. The number of dead and wounded with bayonet wounds was incredibly small. Now, you'll say, "Yeah, but that was then, and this is, um, later." Take it for what it's worth. I'd've thought the proportion of bayonet casualties would be far higher than it was. The number who survived bayoneting was lower than expected. The thrust of the report (okay, that was a poor pun) was that only one side or the other would have the courage to want to close with the enemy to bayonet them at that moment in time. (Suppression, a poor position, etc., would play into that morale state at that moment.) The side that did not want to plunge a bayonet into their opponent would, upon seeing men determined and actively trying to impale them, would flee before being impaled. Usually. If they did not, they died. Usually. Obviously, this analysis stuck in my mind. (Oh, that was a weak pun. But I tried.) What's the point? (Oops, I did it again.) Bayoneting an enemy was extremely rare in the US Civil War, a conflict which saw the bayonet as a much more useful weapon then it was in WWII. If it was that rare in the US Civil War, how many times did someone actually get stabbed with a bayonet in WWII? I'd still like hand-to-hand combat to simulated in a better manner in CMBN. That way a night-time trench raid would really be something to behold.

Hmm, if it needs to have a new interface in order to implement, I don't think we'll see it in any of the CMBN titles. (All this is purely my personal opinion.)

Mad Mike, Well done. FWIW, if the VL's were bigger, it would be much harder to winkle out all the defenders. This would make VL control HARDER, not easier. Additionally, I see no issue with walls making it difficult to gain control of a VL. If your LOS/LOF stops at the edge of the VL and the enemy is a grenade toss away, you don't control it. You need to push out your perimeter.

Enough about these old pieces of iron; what about those rims? Did you follow the van? Have you and your mates accosted the individual yet? Have you made a citizen's arrest? Did you ask the driver where he purchased the rims? Did you have to use your Taser to get those answers from him? If he's a member of the mob, have his bosses now sworn a vendetta against you due to how you duct-taped him to a chair and used the taser? Will they chase you through the streets of London while you launch your vehicle through the air on your re-possessed rims? We need to know.

stoex, Far from being "blunt", you've merely clouded the issue with an emotional appeal against behavior which hasn't even been posited as occurring. I asked my questions to gain more information before I formed an opinion. FWIW, I agree that a 2nd spotting round shouldn't be fired until after the 1st should've impacted. Unfortunately, since there are no savegames, we'll never know what happened. (I'm not even willing to agree that 2nd impact was from the mortar. It could have been an impact from some German ordnance, a different piece of US ordnance, or some form of OBA. It could also have been from the same mortar, as posted.) Agreed, IF anyone had seen a definitive case of multiple spotting rounds being fired prior to the previous round impacting, it would need to be looked at.

What was the mortar teams experience level, leadership, morale, and suppression? Had they fired the 2nd round before the first round landed?

Knaust1, Thanks for double-checking. Ouch, I wasn't "looking" for anything about who's right. I wanted to make sure that you hadn't found a bug which enabled infinite grenade use. So, let's just say my description was verified by your experience and that a new bug has not been uncovered. (BF.C is aware of the grenade count issue.) Thanks for bringing up an issue you saw and doubly so for sticking with it. Regards, Ken

Pshaw. Ignore these shortcuts. You'll only ever gain a superficial understanding of military heirarchy by doing any of those things. Get yourself over to a recuiter: sign up for a few hitches. Come back in 5 years. You'll really understand things then!

Knaust1, Yes, rifle ammo count works correctly. But that's not what you raised. The grenade count does not SHOW the use of grenades. It shows the end-state; how many grenades are left. Internally, the count is always correct. In the UI, the count is correct in the command phase and at the END of the replay phase. The game tracks grenade use. I've explained, in depth, how the grenade count is flawed during the replay. The game does not have an infinite amount of grenades. However, I've posted ALL this in an attempt to see if my understanding of the issue matches up with your observations. You have not verified, or denied, what I've described. Is my description of the issue the same as what you are saw? (RockinHarry: it seems that area target will allow the unit to use up to 1/2 of its grenades. I may be off on that...)

Okay, let's try again. Try this, step by step. 1. Command phase: note the grenade count. Command an area target (red target line) to an adjacent, in LOS action spot. 2. INITIAL replay phase: note the grenade count at the beginning of the replay. Watch how many grenades fly and go "boom". (That will be the "boom" count.) Now note the grenade count at the END of the replay. 3. Keep replaying the same replay. Note the grenade count. Okay, now we have 5 sets of numbers. Step 1, grenades at command phase. Step 2 a.) grenade count at beginning of replay. Step 2 b.) the number of "booms" you saw/heard. Step 2 c.) the grenade count at the end of the replay. Step 3 This should be an exact duplicate of step 2. Replays shouldn't vary. Step 2a and 2c will, probably, be identical. (That's a minor flaw.) However, step 2a will be LESS than step 1. How much will the difference be? It will be the number in step 2b, the number of "booms" you saw/heard. So, step 1-step 2b = step 2a = step 2c Let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks, Ken

Gack! I went there ~5-10 years ago. I walked back from the museum to the train station. Great road. I wish I'd known the link to L of A.

What he just said. Start to focus on the hierarchy of military units. Once you "grok" how it melds together, start to use that knowledge in the game. Look at the command link window for each of your units. Keep your squads in command of their platoon headquarters. Spend a LOT of time browsing the internet to learn about the terminology and the hierarchy. Ken

Knaust1, I am willing to bet that you're watching this during a WeGo replay. Take a squad with grenades and order TARGET about 8-16 meters away, in LOS. (One action spot.) This should be against open ground. BEFORE you click "go", take note of the grenade count. Click "go". Watch the grenades fly. Count them. Subtract them from the initial count: that will be what is "stuck" in the grenade count. This will show you that the grenade count in WeGo replay _is_ stuck. However, it is stuck at the proper count for the number of grenades which are left at the end of the turn. Does that explanation make sense? Ken

No guarantees. At this point I'm willing to bet you're the expert on bunkers. We'll see what else kicks ups. Thanks for doing the spadework on this.

Thanks! Beta team is now aware and will look at it.

Immediately jealous! Do you get to actually use that thing up there in the Great White North? You're much more knowledgeable about the weapon you own than I could ever be, however, assuming my cyclic rate is correct, I _thought_ the MG42 was famous for its 2,000 rpm fire. Is your bolt/spring set for a slower rate?

It happened once to me. Vista/64 FWIW.