c3k

Steve, Thanks for the response. Your reference to the building collapsing seemed to imply that Charles had it coded to a low level of damage tolerance. That is how I interpreted your blog entry. My question was due to my preconceived notions of how strong a building must be to be 3 stories tall (using typical Middle Eastern cinderblock, concrete, and masonry construction), and my understanding of the level of explosive power in the 120mm HEAT round. Referencing the video clip that M1A1TankCommander has provided a link to, about 3 or 4 postings above, shows how little structural damage resulted from that impact. M1A1TankCommander also states that the round in his video link must've been a HEAT round. To sum, I am very doubtful about the abilities of M1 Abrams - of any suffix - to destroy most buildings. Running down the types of rounds: Penetrating rods will leave a small hole through any building. Fire a few thousand, and it may collapse. HEAT makes a boom, but it doesn't seem to really impact the outer walls. (Now, it MAY obliterate the interior. I don't know.) Check the link above. The new cannister would be worthless. (From a structural damage viewpoint.) What else is out there? Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, What kind of ammo was that Abrams using? Thanks, Ken Edited for this clarification: This question refers to the scenario blog posted by Battlefront.com, not the video supplied M1A1TankCommander. Apparently, M1A1TankCommander and I cross-posted. Ken [ September 06, 2006, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Steve, Very nice. Thank you for the extra explanation. One more issue: no matter how much I've clicked on the GUI, it hasn't done anything. I think it's broken. Please fix or somethink. Regards, Ken

Nice. I'd like to voice my desire to have some sort of information available regarding the various icons shown. Vergultungswaffe has shown, tongue in cheek, that they are not self-explanatory. Obviously, the icons will become familiar with use, but I think the weapons and ammo images are quite small and can be easily confused. Perhaps allowing a mouse pointer which hovers over the icon, using the UBK as an example, would open a small window stating "This is an Urban Breach Kit which allows the unit to break down walls, doors, floors, and ceilings." Or whatever it really does. This would be useful for the different ammo types represented, as well as the wide variety of rocket propelled weapons, all of which have a long cylindrical shape. Is anything like this even being contemplated? Or, is it assumed that I will be able to glance at the icons (whatever the size they are on MY computer screen) and divine their intended meaning? My criticism is meant to improve the usability of the GUI, not slam the hard work which has obviously gone into packing a huge amount of information into a clean package. Thank you, Ken

I'm not sure exactly how to approach this. I think I should let it speak for itself. I'm wondering how many others see the irony here? Regards, Ken

Hmmm, "No." That's about, oh, two letters, give or take. Instead of lambasting a person over a question such as the one posted, why not just post a two letter answer? (Or a three letter answer, if that's the case.) Or is it just more fun to ridicule a new poster? I'm hoping that justgazgaz ends up playing each of you in CM:SF, and wins. Regards, Ken

Crap. Does this mean that I will NOT be able to have a trench 999 millimeters across? Please fix or do somethink. Ken

Hmmm, IEDs... Will the OPFOR player be able to place a trigger zone AROUND IEDs? I'm thinking about an IED planted at an intersection (just for example). The controlling unit is 100 meters away, with good LOS (action point to action point, that is). I want the controlling unit to detonate the command action IED when a U.S. unit enters the intersection. How do I make that desire get translated into the game interface? Using an analogy to CMx1 (however inappropriate THAT may be), I want a "Covered Arc" command, but NOT centered on the unit, rather, centered on the distant IED. Could I do that? Draw a 20 meter circle around the IED, if the controlling unit is in good order with LOS, it will then send the command signal? If the "Covered Arc" command is fixed to the unit, IED control could be VERY unrealistically difficult. All this was posted in total ignorance. Please shed some illumination. Thanks, Ken

Whoa!! I'm not a Kornet gunner or anything, BUT... How the hell does someone aim at a specific spot on a target vehicle at 5 kilometers? What, does each launcher have a Hubble sized telescope? Or, do they run a high-fidelity video link back from the seeker to the launcher? Thanks, Ken

Gents, Regarding the above photo, the one with three men on a crest, overlooking a road and some ruins in the far distance: examining it closely, it seems that they are at a firing range. Zoom in on the upper right portion, the area which is under the sights of the .50. It seems to me to be filled with man-sized targets. The vehicle could be across the road to simply keep others from wandering into a hot firing range. Not quite as SOP as a red flag, but I'd think it works. Now, I know that my explanation flies in the face of the stated caption, but I'm not one to trust captions blindly. Please examine the original. Thank you, Ken

Steve, Thanks. Of course, to solve the "...hearing a boom and turning the camera to see nothing because you missed the fireball" dilemma, simply make GINORMOUS friggin' fireballs!! Ken

If it's not too late, a toggle for language selection would be appreciated. Were I a Syrian, I'm sure I could understand the various yells, commands, etc., uttered by my Syrian counterparts. For flavor, the local language is a boon to the game. For simulation, it's not. Allow me to toggle local language (or "true language"?) off. When it's off, all the wav's, or whatever file type is used, defaults to a second wav - in English. (Obviously, if someone wants a different version of the game, then all the wav's could be copied from the "true language" into that preferred language.) Thanks, Ken

Ahhh, Forgive my tardiness, I only just accessed the links. Looking at the second photo - 10991.jpg, that's an early U.S. psyche warfare vehicle, the armored victory statue (Carol) carrier. Known as the "AVS©C". Nicknamed by the troops as "Gimp and Dime" for reasons lost to the mists of history. The statue it transported, clearly visible in the photo, was known as "Conquering Carol". Using a female name for a male victory symbol was thought to be most effective for demoralizing German troops. In use, the psyche warfare troops would wait for a heavy battle to break out. They would then rush into the very forefront of it, displaying, with verve, their victory statues. Due to the cost, borne soley by the nascent U.S. artistic community, only a few prototypes were ever produced. Carry on. Ken

Thanks. Looking at the TO&E posted above, I count 39 legs and 7 vehicle operators for a total of 46 in the platoon. Will vehicle loadouts allow for that plus all the extras? Will players be able to split teams to load the vehicles according to a tactical plan? (E.g., all of 1st squad, 2nd MG team, and FO in one vehicle?) As for updates: thanks. Regards, Ken

Mr. Battlefront.com (oh, nice name), please stop posting off-topic in this forum. This forum is dedicated to debating modern politics and various viewpoints and political definitions. If you continue to post rantings about make-believe games, I'll report you to the moderator. Thank you, Ken

Dear God! Are some of you SERIOUSLY equating hooded, video-porning thugs who decapitate their drugged and bound captives with sawing knives, swords, and power tools to be on par with the actions of various militaries? Debate terminology all you want, but let's keep a little focus on what differentiates the actions being talked about. Ken

As well, the 6 battalion divisions could be organized into either 2 regiments of 3 battalions, or 3 regiments of 2 battalions. There are pros and cons to each arrangement. Regards, Ken

John, ISTR that the 28/20 was only issued to German paratroop units. I'm wide open to being corrected on that as my source documents are not at hand. But, depending on your penchant for historical accuracy in your scenarios, that could have a large affect on rarity. Regards, Ken

On a more serious note than my previous comment, will RPG's be limited to a specific target set? More directly, will the ducted exhaust as modified and used in Somalia be simulated so as to enable RPG shots against high elevation targets without subjecting the firer to backblast? Will RPG duds be simulated if they make a direct hit on an individual? Ugly, but has happened. What of an RPG gunner, fuse unprotected, getting hit such that the RPG round has its fuse contact the ground? BOOM. Bad for those around him. Again, a known weakness. Regards, Ken

John, Agreed. As a totally uninformed observer, the change in weapon status is quite interesting. There is a huge difference in an anti-ship surface-to-surface missile (whether skimming, cruising or following any other course), and a slow moving, propeller powered drone. Other than the obvious questions regarding the veracity of the reports, I would be curious as to the Israeli rules of engagement. Seeing a Mach 2 missile at 3 meters over the water coming at you would seem to offer ironclad assurance that you're under attack. Seeing a drone buzzing around could cause some confusion: is it Israeli? Is is a 3rd nation? Could it be rented by one of the media (who assume they're above being targeted whilst they collect intel)? Etc. Regards, Ken

Guys, Has anyone else noticed that all the RPG's shown have the same exact wood-grain pattern? I'm very disappointed. I'd like a wood grog to examine the wood and let us know if the species used in the screenshots is a species used in the actual production of RPG's. For now, I'll grant BF.C the benefit of the doubt on the actual wood species used. However, I would expect individual wood grain patterns for every weapon when the actual game is released. In a similar vein, will all the soldiers represented in-game have the same fingerprints? (Tongue firmly in cheek!) Thanks, Ken

Tim Hughes, D'OH! That's what I get for being pedantic! I decided to put in all the 1/2's for the diameter to radius conversion and I got carried away. I'll edit my post to reflect your correction. Thank you! Regards, Ken

Gents, I've read this, and have a comment for JasonC . JasonC, reading your earlier post, quoted, in part, below, you give a table of Joules/square mm for various weapons. I have no reason to doubt any of the muzzle velocities or shell masses you've used. However, I do not get the same values for J/mm2 that you did. Using the values you list (copied at the end of my message, below), for the 7.92mm ATR I will run through some calculations. Example: 7.92mm ATR at 1140 m/s, .014kg Energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity 1/2 * .014kg * 1140 m/s * 1140 m/s = 9,097.2 Joules. Okay, that is your listed 9kJ energy figure. That is fine. You list the energy at impact point as being 45 J/mm2. Using no allowance for projectile shape, but just the area of the projectile leads to using the formula for area of a circle, based on the muzzle diameter, to determine projectile area. Area = radius * radius * pi radius = 1/2 diameter (1/2 * 7.92mm)* (1/2 * 7.92mm)* pi = 49.27 mm2 Dividing energy by area, J/mm2; 9,097 Joules/49.27 mm2 = 184.6 Joules/mm2 Obviously my methodology is different than yours. How did you calculate your "energy/area at impact point"? Obviously none of this takes into account the shape of the projectile and any effect that the shape and materials characteristics have on penetration. Still, it seems to be useful to get a rough approximation of the energies involved. JasonC, how did you run your calculations? Thank you, Ken (Edited because Tim Hughes pointed out that I'm a dolt and forgot the correct formula for area of a circle. Thank you. The correction has been applied.) [ July 11, 2006, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

I agree with Sailor Malan regarding FO loss penalties. Additionally, perhaps the replacement FO pool would gradually lose quality. (I imagine that there would be a pool of replacements at the same quality level as the original. If the pool is depleted, new replacements get added to the pool with a lower quality level. This keeps the pool filled. As they sit in the pool, unused, their quality level gradually rises to the same level as the originals. This represents in-unit training, etc. The penalty is incurred if the pool is depleted and replacements get sent forward without enough time in-unit.) Regards, Ken